Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail Application No.1294/2021
State vs. Amar Singh
Bail Application No.1295/2021
State vs. Swati Patel
FIR No.27/2021
U/s 384/389 IPC
PS: Parliament Street
06.07.2021
Present : Sh. Dharam Chand, Addl. PP for State, through VC.
IO/SI Satyender Singh Yadav from Special Staff, New Delhi,
through VC.
Sh. Ratnesh Deo and Sh. Anuj Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for complainant
Prince Raj, through VC.
Sh. Bhuwanesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for applicants/accused Amar
Singh and Swati Patel, through VC.
Separate applications u/s 438 Cr.PC for grant of anticipatory bail
have been filed on behalf of applicant/accused Amar Singh and Swati Patel.
Brief facts are that according to the complainant, due to political
association with each other, the complainant and the applicant/accused Swati Patel
developed intimate relations with each other. However, accused was clicking him
in a compromising position with her. Thereafter, accused Swati Patel stated
blackmailing him and demanded that he pay her Rs.One Crore else, she would
post his obscene videos and pictures on social media and make them public. The
complainant initially, paid some money 3 – 4 times to the accused as extortion
money but thereafter, accused Swati and her associate namely Amar Singh
continued pressurizing him for giving more payment and finally complainant
lodged the present FIR as well as present application for anticipatory bail.
It is submitted in the anticipatory bail application of applicant
Amar Singh that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present FIR in
view of his association with Swati Patel as he has been supporting her and has
been victimized due to the said reason.
-- 1 of 4 --
It is submitted in the anticipatory bail application of applicant
Swati Patel that she is innocent and has been a victim of sexual harassment/rape at
workplace and on the contrary complainant is Hon'ble Parliament Member who
has abused his power to falsely implicate the present petitioner, so that she does
not open her mouth against him for sexual harassment/rape case.
Reply to the bail applications which was filed before the court on
21.06.2021 revealed surprising facts. According to the reply, on 12.02.2021 the
houses of accused Swati Patel and Amar Singh, situated at Ghaziabad, were
raided by SI Satyender Singh Yadav and staff. The officials of Delhi Police were
accompanied by local police. Accused Swati Patel and Amar Singh were
'apprehended' by Special Staff of New Delhi District. Thereafter, they were taken
to a local police station where a diary entry in this regard was made. Thereafter,
they were brought to Delhi where they were kept in PS Mandir Marg where the
office of Special Staff was situated. Thereafter, notices u/s 41A Cr.PC were
served upon them. They were interrogated and recoveries were effected. It was
further submitted that as per provisions of section 41.1 Cr.PC and judgment of
hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar they were allowed to go. The bail
application was then opposed on the ground that now for investigation and
unearthing other facts police custody of the applicants was required.
Therefore, it was apparent that the applicants/accused persons were
taken in custody, were brought to Delhi, kept in the police station at Delhi till 7.00
p.m. without arresting them, that the notices u/s 41A Cr.PC were served upon
them in custody and at a police station at Delhi. It appeared to me that without
following the process after such arrest, had either released the accused persons in
a non bailable offence after arresting the accused, or the accused were kept in
illegal custody. Thus, this court directed inquiry to be conducted by the DCP
concerned.
-- 2 of 4 --
Pursuance to the order dated 21.06.2021, DCP, New Delhi District,
sent a letter dated 05.07.2021 stating therein, that during inquiry, it was revealed
that IO/SI Satyender Singh of Special Staff, New Delhi District, had failed to
follow due process of law while conducting the investigation and interrogating the
accused persons in this case. Disciplinary action has been initiated against the IO.
During the course of arguments, Ld. Addl. PP has submitted that
because of the peculiar manner in which investigation so far has been conducted,
it is for the IO to explain whether and why he requires custody of the accused
persons? IO during the course of proceedings has today submitted that the
accused persons are not required for custodial interrogation as recoveries have
already been effected.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances and the fact that
the accused persons have already joined the investigation many times and their
custodial interrogation is not required, anticipatory bail applications of accused
Amar Singh and accused Swati Patel are allowed. However, the applicants/
accused shall join the investigation as and when directed by the IO by a notice u/s
160 Cr.P.C. In case, the IO finds the necessity to arrest the applicants/accused, he
shall enlarge the applicants on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/ each with one surety each of like amount, to the satisfaction of the
IO/SHO concerned. Bail is granted subject to the condition that the applicants
shall not leave India without prior permission of the court, shall not tamper the
evidence and shall not influence the witnesses.
Copy of the order be sent to the IO.
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ03/NDD/PHC/New Delhi
06.07.2021
-- 3 of 4 --
It is certified that Video Conferencing was held in an uninterrupted
manner and during the proceedings, no objections were raised by either of the
parties regarding the connectivity i.e. audio or visual quality.
(Reader)
06.07.2021
-- 4 of 4 --